Major Life Events, Daily Stressors, and Perimenstrual Symptoms

1985 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 263???267 ◽  
Author(s):  
NANCY FUGATE WOODS ◽  
ADA MOST ◽  
GRETCHEN D. LONGENECKER
2015 ◽  
Vol 72 (4) ◽  
pp. 613-621 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Bellingtier ◽  
Shevaun D. Neupert ◽  
Dana Kotter-Grühn

1981 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen D. Kanner ◽  
James C. Coyne ◽  
Catherine Schaefer ◽  
Richard S. Lazarus

1990 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 949-959 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy F. M. G. Berden ◽  
Monika Althaus ◽  
Frank C. Verhulst

Author(s):  
Valentina Hlebec ◽  
Maja Mrzel ◽  
Tina Kogovšek

Some studies (e.g., Kogovšek & Hlebec, 2008, 2009) have shown that the name generator and the role relation approaches to measuring social networks are to some extent comparable, but less so the name generator and the event-related approaches (Hlebec, Mrzel, & Kogovšek, 2009). In this chapter, the composition of the social support network assessed by both the general social support approach and the event-related approach (support during 15 major life events) is analyzed and compared. In both cases, the role relation approach is used. In addition, in both approaches a more elaborate (16 possible categories ranging from partner, mother, father, friend to no one) and a more simple (6 possible categories ranging from family member, friend, neighbor to no one) response format is applied and compared. The aim of the chapter is to establish, in a controlled quasi-experiment setting, whether the different approaches (i.e. the general social support and the event-related approach) produce similar social networks regardless of the response format (long vs. short).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document